Sunday, January 17, 2016

Sentinel Editorial

NED pipeline is not needed here now

One of the largest
proposed energy projects in this region’s history, the Northeast Energy
Direct pipeline would transmit 1.2 dekatherms per day of natural gas
from shale gas fields in northern Pennsylvania to Dracut, Mass. Of the
project’s 419 miles, 72 would traverse 19 New Hampshire communities,
among them Fitzwilliam, Richmond, Rindge, Troy and Winchester.

Some of the
opposition to the pipeline is ideological. Environmentalists oppose the
use, generally, of fossil fuels and/or the process of fracking, by which
the shale gas is obtained. Some also question the potential use of
eminent domain to pry land from reluctant property owners along the
path, a measure allowed under federal law in siting pipelines. And some
say a community should have the power to deny such a large-scale
project.

There are issues any large
pipeline would raise, regarding wetlands, water and air quality,
emergency response, noise and health issues, construction and
disruption. There are property issues — not only how much property
owners along the path would be paid under eminent domain, but also the
effect having a 30-inch gas pipeline running through town would have on
nearby property values. There is the very real prospect that some area
residents could see the investment they’ve made in their homes and land
ruined by this project, with no recourse.

There is also opposition to the
company involved. The Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. is a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, a Texas energy giant. There are critics of Kinder Morgan
who point to the company’s safety record and question whether this
pipeline would pose a danger. There is also a question of Kinder
Morgan’s financial health. Investors’ website The Motley Fool counted it
among the 10 worst-performing S&P 500 stocks of 2015 and in early
December, Moody’s downgraded Kinder Morgan’s risk, forcing the company
to reduce a planned dividend by 75 percent.

And there are questions specific
to this plan, such as efforts to make New England electric ratepayers
foot the bill for the $5 billion project. The company has lobbied each
of the states within the ISO-New England power grid to argue that
ratepayers will benefit and, therefore, should ensure construction.
According to the Conservation Law Foundation, which has filed to
intervene in the regulatory process in opposition to the project, this
is key to gaining approval, because Kinder Morgan so far hasn’t found
enough takers to demonstrate demand for this large a project. Instead,
it aims to have the New England states guarantee the risk with the hope
of lowering prices, something the CLF argues is illegal under the
Federal Power Act.

As the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, which will approve or deny the pipeline, settles in to
consider it, it will balance all of those negatives — certain or
potential — against the need for more energy in the region.

That’s the entire equation.
Picture a balancing scale with many stones weighing down one pan, and
one big rock — the demand for gas — sitting in the other. Thus, the big
question is solely this: How much is this gas needed in New England?

The answer, at this time, appears to be not enough to counter the negative effects of the project.

Kinder Morgan and business
interests have made the case the gas is needed here for energy
reliability, particularly during those winter periods when heating homes
and power-grid needs collide.

In early 2013, there was a spike
in energy prices when electricity providers were caught short of power
during a cold snap. Essentially, home heating companies have first dibs
on the region’s natural gas supply. When there’s a cold snap, that
demand rises, and the gas available for power generation drops. In 2013,
power companies didn’t have adequate backup plans in place to deal with
this, and briefly had to buy energy on the spot market, causing the
price spike.

According to a recent study
commissioned by the Massachusetts Attorney General’s Office, rules are
now in place that will force providers to the regional grid to have
backup sources of energy in such cases, so they won’t be at the mercy of
the spot market. Further, the report says, energy-efficiency gains in
recent years have stabilized the region’s energy demands, so the
situation won’t worsen. Overall, the report finds, there should be no
need for Kinder Morgan’s gas in the region over the next 15 years.

We agree having more energy
available is a good thing, and that the region can’t keep saying “no” to
projects based on such not-in-my-backyard arguments as smell or
unsightliness if the case for energy need is compelling.

However, there are several other
projects underway or proposed that would bring power to the region.
Further, during the next 15 years technological advances may make the
need for such huge infrastructure projects obsolete. In the meantime,
either there is an urgent need for this gas or there is not, and those
for and against the pipeline disagree on this most-important point.

We find less reason to question
the Bay State’s principal legal agency than anyone else weighing in on
the project so far. That office has nothing to gain from either knocking
or advancing the project. If the Massachusetts Attorney General’s
Office report is accurate, the one big rock on the scale — the
overriding need for more power — is far smaller than its proponents are
claiming.

Based on the arguments made by the parties thus far, the disruptions and downsides far outweigh the benefits.

No comments:

Welcome to our site

Please feel free to leave your comments or questions. We ask that you post responsibly, the use of foul language and any personal attacks will not be tolerated. If you have a town matter you'd like to discuss drop us an email and we will post the subject and open it for discussion for you.

WinchesterInformer@gmail.com

Disclaimer

This web site has no affiliation, in any official or unofficial capacity, with the Town of Winchester. Meeting times listed are for information only and do not constitute legal meeting notices. Comments are the opinions of the person(s) posting and not necessarily those of the WinchesterInformer. We reserve the right to edit or remove offensive comments.

Upcoming Meetings & Events ..

About Me

I am part of a group of Winchester citizens completely opposed to dirty and hazardous businesses, like asphalt and wood burning plants wanting to come into town at the expense of our quality of life. I am concerned about preserving the rural character of Winchester. These types of development have no benefits for Winchester citizens and they create many health hazards and will cause the destruction of green space. Our Winchester is known for its precious natural resources; dramatic rocky slopes, unique wetlands and abundant wildlife. I feel there are many questions concerning these proposed projects that outweigh any benefits. The increase in traffic along existing streets and noise and air pollution would be very significant. I am also concerned that the town infrastructure cannot cope with the problems these types of businesses will demand. Furthermore, I am very discouraged with the Planning Board and Zoning Boards and feel they have been negligent in their duties to protect neighboring residents from health hazards and safety issues that will surely arise and affect the lives and livelihoods of many citizens.